Is this Gromacs Core big?

[EnderXC]

Hi guys,

I'm using the graphical version of F@H and usually the icon says something like 200/400 of a WU but it's reporting 2300/10000. Should I be worried? When I attempt to open the display it brings my comp to it's knees. Otherwise my comp is running fine.

EDIT: Sorry about the first post, I hit the submit button too soon.

 

[RavenD]

The graphical version tends to be worse than the console, especially if you game. Try using the console version as a service, and EMIII to monitor progress.

 

[chileman]

I second the console idea.

Also, don't worry about the number of frames, usually we think of them in steps (100steps). There might be more frames but they get chewed through MUCH faster. Most WUs can completed within a couple days by a modern system.

 

[84gthatch]

i am running one that is "10k" frames and it's tearing through one about every 3-4 seconds
but i get some of the 600 ptrs and there 125 frames and it takes about 10-12 minutes apiece

 

[Kvothe]

Like everyone has said, there is a difference between frames and steps. What you're seeing are the number of frames which can vary greatly from protein to protein in not only number, but also processing time. EM3 as suggested by RavenD is an excellent idea as it can give you very good estimates and status readouts on what you're working on.

 

[torment]

any processing time difference between the GUI-based and console versions?

 

[RavenD]

any processing time difference between the GUI-based and console versions?

I've never tried the GUI version, but I would guess the console version would be marginally faster since drawing the GUI takes a minimal amount of cpu time.

 

[BillR]

i am running one that is "10k" frames and it's tearing through one about every 3-4 seconds
but i get some of the 600 ptrs and there 125 frames and it takes about 10-12 minutes apiece

600 pointers are 100 frames. The big question is, what CPU do you have that can do a frame from a 600 pointer in 10 to 12 min?